Table 1: Tomato genotypes used in the study
Table 2: Digital features employed for assessing response of tomato genotypes to water stress
Figure 1: Differences in digital biomass percentage reduction among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 2: Differences in digital biomass percentage recovery among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress.Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 3: Top view area of tomato genotypes under stress and recovery conditions. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Plate 1: Top view images of tomato genotype IIHR 2843 depicting digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 4: Relationship between convex hull area and water lost in tomato under deficit water stress
Figure 5: Relationship between leaf area and compactness in tomato under deficit water stress
Table 3: The variations in relative water content, water potential andquantum efficiency of PSII in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 4: The differences in total osmolyte and MDA contents in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 5: Relationship between digital biomass and other digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 6: Digital biomass of IIHR 2195 and IIHR 2843 at 100% and 50% FC. Values are the means±SEM (n=3)
Table 1: Tomato genotypes used in the study
Table 2: Digital features employed for assessing response of tomato genotypes to water stress
Figure 1: Differences in digital biomass percentage reduction among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 2: Differences in digital biomass percentage recovery among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress.Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 3: Top view area of tomato genotypes under stress and recovery conditions. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Plate 1: Top view images of tomato genotype IIHR 2843 depicting digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 4: Relationship between convex hull area and water lost in tomato under deficit water stress
Figure 5: Relationship between leaf area and compactness in tomato under deficit water stress
Table 3: The variations in relative water content, water potential andquantum efficiency of PSII in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 4: The differences in total osmolyte and MDA contents in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 5: Relationship between digital biomass and other digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 6: Digital biomass of IIHR 2195 and IIHR 2843 at 100% and 50% FC. Values are the means±SEM (n=3)
Table 1: Tomato genotypes used in the study
Table 2: Digital features employed for assessing response of tomato genotypes to water stress
Figure 1: Differences in digital biomass percentage reduction among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 2: Differences in digital biomass percentage recovery among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress.Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 3: Top view area of tomato genotypes under stress and recovery conditions. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Plate 1: Top view images of tomato genotype IIHR 2843 depicting digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 4: Relationship between convex hull area and water lost in tomato under deficit water stress
Figure 5: Relationship between leaf area and compactness in tomato under deficit water stress
Table 3: The variations in relative water content, water potential andquantum efficiency of PSII in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 4: The differences in total osmolyte and MDA contents in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 5: Relationship between digital biomass and other digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 6: Digital biomass of IIHR 2195 and IIHR 2843 at 100% and 50% FC. Values are the means±SEM (n=3)
Table 1: Tomato genotypes used in the study
Table 2: Digital features employed for assessing response of tomato genotypes to water stress
Figure 1: Differences in digital biomass percentage reduction among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 2: Differences in digital biomass percentage recovery among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress.Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 3: Top view area of tomato genotypes under stress and recovery conditions. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Plate 1: Top view images of tomato genotype IIHR 2843 depicting digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 4: Relationship between convex hull area and water lost in tomato under deficit water stress
Figure 5: Relationship between leaf area and compactness in tomato under deficit water stress
Table 3: The variations in relative water content, water potential andquantum efficiency of PSII in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 4: The differences in total osmolyte and MDA contents in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 5: Relationship between digital biomass and other digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 6: Digital biomass of IIHR 2195 and IIHR 2843 at 100% and 50% FC. Values are the means±SEM (n=3)
Table 1: Tomato genotypes used in the study
Table 2: Digital features employed for assessing response of tomato genotypes to water stress
Figure 1: Differences in digital biomass percentage reduction among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 2: Differences in digital biomass percentage recovery among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress.Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 3: Top view area of tomato genotypes under stress and recovery conditions. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Plate 1: Top view images of tomato genotype IIHR 2843 depicting digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 4: Relationship between convex hull area and water lost in tomato under deficit water stress
Figure 5: Relationship between leaf area and compactness in tomato under deficit water stress
Table 3: The variations in relative water content, water potential andquantum efficiency of PSII in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 4: The differences in total osmolyte and MDA contents in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 5: Relationship between digital biomass and other digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 6: Digital biomass of IIHR 2195 and IIHR 2843 at 100% and 50% FC. Values are the means±SEM (n=3)
Table 1: Tomato genotypes used in the study
Table 2: Digital features employed for assessing response of tomato genotypes to water stress
Figure 1: Differences in digital biomass percentage reduction among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 2: Differences in digital biomass percentage recovery among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress.Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 3: Top view area of tomato genotypes under stress and recovery conditions. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Plate 1: Top view images of tomato genotype IIHR 2843 depicting digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 4: Relationship between convex hull area and water lost in tomato under deficit water stress
Figure 5: Relationship between leaf area and compactness in tomato under deficit water stress
Table 3: The variations in relative water content, water potential andquantum efficiency of PSII in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 4: The differences in total osmolyte and MDA contents in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 5: Relationship between digital biomass and other digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 6: Digital biomass of IIHR 2195 and IIHR 2843 at 100% and 50% FC. Values are the means±SEM (n=3)
Table 1: Tomato genotypes used in the study
Table 2: Digital features employed for assessing response of tomato genotypes to water stress
Figure 1: Differences in digital biomass percentage reduction among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 2: Differences in digital biomass percentage recovery among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress.Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 3: Top view area of tomato genotypes under stress and recovery conditions. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Plate 1: Top view images of tomato genotype IIHR 2843 depicting digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 4: Relationship between convex hull area and water lost in tomato under deficit water stress
Figure 5: Relationship between leaf area and compactness in tomato under deficit water stress
Table 3: The variations in relative water content, water potential andquantum efficiency of PSII in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 4: The differences in total osmolyte and MDA contents in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 5: Relationship between digital biomass and other digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 6: Digital biomass of IIHR 2195 and IIHR 2843 at 100% and 50% FC. Values are the means±SEM (n=3)
Table 1: Tomato genotypes used in the study
Table 2: Digital features employed for assessing response of tomato genotypes to water stress
Figure 1: Differences in digital biomass percentage reduction among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 2: Differences in digital biomass percentage recovery among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress.Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 3: Top view area of tomato genotypes under stress and recovery conditions. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Plate 1: Top view images of tomato genotype IIHR 2843 depicting digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 4: Relationship between convex hull area and water lost in tomato under deficit water stress
Figure 5: Relationship between leaf area and compactness in tomato under deficit water stress
Table 3: The variations in relative water content, water potential andquantum efficiency of PSII in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 4: The differences in total osmolyte and MDA contents in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 5: Relationship between digital biomass and other digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 6: Digital biomass of IIHR 2195 and IIHR 2843 at 100% and 50% FC. Values are the means±SEM (n=3)
Table 1: Tomato genotypes used in the study
Table 2: Digital features employed for assessing response of tomato genotypes to water stress
Figure 1: Differences in digital biomass percentage reduction among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 2: Differences in digital biomass percentage recovery among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress.Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 3: Top view area of tomato genotypes under stress and recovery conditions. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Plate 1: Top view images of tomato genotype IIHR 2843 depicting digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 4: Relationship between convex hull area and water lost in tomato under deficit water stress
Figure 5: Relationship between leaf area and compactness in tomato under deficit water stress
Table 3: The variations in relative water content, water potential andquantum efficiency of PSII in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 4: The differences in total osmolyte and MDA contents in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 5: Relationship between digital biomass and other digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 6: Digital biomass of IIHR 2195 and IIHR 2843 at 100% and 50% FC. Values are the means±SEM (n=3)
Table 1: Tomato genotypes used in the study
Table 2: Digital features employed for assessing response of tomato genotypes to water stress
Figure 1: Differences in digital biomass percentage reduction among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 2: Differences in digital biomass percentage recovery among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress.Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 3: Top view area of tomato genotypes under stress and recovery conditions. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Plate 1: Top view images of tomato genotype IIHR 2843 depicting digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 4: Relationship between convex hull area and water lost in tomato under deficit water stress
Figure 5: Relationship between leaf area and compactness in tomato under deficit water stress
Table 3: The variations in relative water content, water potential andquantum efficiency of PSII in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 4: The differences in total osmolyte and MDA contents in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 5: Relationship between digital biomass and other digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 6: Digital biomass of IIHR 2195 and IIHR 2843 at 100% and 50% FC. Values are the means±SEM (n=3)
Table 1: Tomato genotypes used in the study
Table 2: Digital features employed for assessing response of tomato genotypes to water stress
Figure 1: Differences in digital biomass percentage reduction among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 2: Differences in digital biomass percentage recovery among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress.Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 3: Top view area of tomato genotypes under stress and recovery conditions. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Plate 1: Top view images of tomato genotype IIHR 2843 depicting digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 4: Relationship between convex hull area and water lost in tomato under deficit water stress
Figure 5: Relationship between leaf area and compactness in tomato under deficit water stress
Table 3: The variations in relative water content, water potential andquantum efficiency of PSII in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 4: The differences in total osmolyte and MDA contents in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 5: Relationship between digital biomass and other digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 6: Digital biomass of IIHR 2195 and IIHR 2843 at 100% and 50% FC. Values are the means±SEM (n=3)
Table 1: Tomato genotypes used in the study
Table 2: Digital features employed for assessing response of tomato genotypes to water stress
Figure 1: Differences in digital biomass percentage reduction among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 2: Differences in digital biomass percentage recovery among nine tomato genotypes under deficit water stress.Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Figure 3: Top view area of tomato genotypes under stress and recovery conditions. Values are the means±SEM (n=4)
Plate 1: Top view images of tomato genotype IIHR 2843 depicting digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 4: Relationship between convex hull area and water lost in tomato under deficit water stress
Figure 5: Relationship between leaf area and compactness in tomato under deficit water stress
Table 3: The variations in relative water content, water potential andquantum efficiency of PSII in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 4: The differences in total osmolyte and MDA contents in nine tomato genotypes under two water regimes
Table 5: Relationship between digital biomass and other digital features under control, stress and recovery conditions
Figure 6: Digital biomass of IIHR 2195 and IIHR 2843 at 100% and 50% FC. Values are the means±SEM (n=3)
People also read
Review Article
Astrologically Designed Medicinal Gardens of India
Maneesha S. R., P. Vidula, V. A. Ubarhande and E. B. ChakurkarVedic astrology, astral garden, celestial garden, zodiac garden
Published Online : 14 Apr 2021
Short Research
Genetic Variability for Quantitative Characters in Vegetable Amaranthus (Amaranthus tricolor L.)
Bhanupratap Jangde, Bhagwat Saran Asati, Barsha Tripathy, Pappu Lal Bairwa and Lav KumarAmaranthus, genetic variability, heritability, genetic advance, leaf yield
Published Online : 07 Feb 2018
Full Research
Construction of Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves for Precipitation with Annual Maxima Data in Kumulur Region
Vanitha, S. and V. RavikumarRainfall, intensity, duration, frequency, gumbel, LPT III
Published Online : 07 Oct 2017
Full Research
Development of Syrup from Mulberry (Morus alba L.) and its Quality Evaluation under Ambient and Refrigerated Storage Conditions
Hamid, N. S. Thakur, Pradeep Kumar and Abhimanyu ThakurMorus alba, syrup, storage, polyethylene terephthalate, phenolic antioxidants
Published Online : 07 Feb 2017
Full Research
AMMI and GGE Biplot Analysis of Yield Stability and Adaptability of Elite Genotypes of Bread Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) for Northern Hill Zone of India
M. S. Jeberson, L. Kant, N. Kishore, V. Rana, D. P. Walia and D. SinghBread wheat, environment, GGE, AMMI, stability
Published Online : 07 Oct 2017
Popular Article
Bio-resources and Environmental Status in Narara and Poshitra Islands at Marine National Park, Gulf of Kachchh, Gujarat
Arti Joshi, A. Y. Desai, A. J. Bhatt and T. H. DaveGulf of Kachchh, Bio-resources, status, conservation, Gujarat
Published Online : 07 Apr 2018
.jpg)
.jpg)
